Scaly jp monsters ?

[fason]

After a while of searching online i found the term scaly jp monster commonly used for any dinosaur that would most likely have had feathers that dont(even though said dinosaur is depicted with skin /hide,that might have a scaly texture ) , While i understand that in certain cases  where it has been substantially proven  that said creature had feathers it is just plain weird but  when ever a creature that has no direct evidence (say utahraptor , or trex ) is depicted without it ,it is assigned that label , even if the proportions are right and its overall accurate other than the feathers .Sure you can use the scales on a sabertooth argument but cant you put skin and fur on extant mammals ?(only reason we put fur on sabertooths is because it is a feline and we have felines to base it off of  ) for trex and utahraptor we mainly have phylogenetic bracketing (which " always" works *cough* *cough*spinosaurus *cough* *cough *)so why should  people be scrutinized if they decide not to put feathers on their creatures , and why should all featherless dinos be assigned this title ?





p.s:i know theres more evidence to support feathers on the stated individuals and that they most likely had them but it was just an example and a bad one at that ,i just needed an example

[Patrx]

(Only reason we put fur on sabertooths is because it is a feline and we have felines to base it off of) for trex and utahraptor we mainly have phylogenetic bracketing...

The thing is, those are the same. We illustrate fur on prehistoric felids because known felids have fur; that is phylogenetic bracketing in action. Similarly, we illustrate Utahraptor with its feathers intact because known eumaniraptorans (/paravians) have (and had) feathers.

I do find it interesting that Jurassic Park's creatures are generally known as "scaly" even though they generally have more bare skin than scales 

[Gwangi]

After a while of searching online i found the term scaly jp monster commonly used for any dinosaur that would most likely have had feathers that dont(even though said dinosaur is depicted with skin /hide,that might have a scaly texture ) , While i understand that in certain cases  where it has been substantially proven  that said creature had feathers it is just plain weird but  when ever a creature that has no direct evidence (say utahraptor , or trex ) is depicted without it ,it is assigned that label , even if the proportions are right and its overall accurate other than the feathers .Sure you can use the scales on a sabertooth argument but cant you put skin and fur on extant mammals ?(only reason we put fur on sabertooths is because it is a feline and we have felines to base it off of  ) for trex and utahraptor we mainly have phylogenetic bracketing (which " always" works *cough* *cough*spinosaurus *cough* *cough *)so why should  people be scrutinized if they decide not to put feathers on their creatures , and why should all featherless dinos be assigned this title ?





p.s:i know theres more evidence to support feathers on the stated individuals and that they most likely had them but it was just an example and a bad one at that ,i just needed an example

Well you kind of answered your own question there. We know extinct Smilodon had fur because they were felines, and modern felines have fur. Apply that same logic to these dinosaurs. Birds have feathers, birds are eumaniraptorans. Utahraptor was a eumaniraptoran. So naturally, Utahraptor would have feathers too. Tyrannosaurus we're less certain about but it's still a coelurosaur, so are eumaniraptorans and thus, birds are coelurosaurs too. All coelurosaurs (Tyrannosaurus included) are more closely related to birds than they are to any other clade of dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurus is more closely related to a sparrow than it is to Allosaurus. Fossilized evidence for feathers has been found for every major group of coelurosaur (including tyrannosauroids).

So you have to ask yourself, in the absence of direct fossil evidence which makes more sense on any coelurosaur? Feathers or scales? That's phylogenetic bracketing. That's how we know Smilodon had fur and that's how we know these stem-bird dinosaurs had feathers. At least until direct evidence suggests otherwise but as far as I'm aware there is no fossil evidence that ANY coelurosaur didn't have feathers, at least to some degree.

[stargatedalek]

Spinosaurus adaptations actually make a great deal of sense looking at its close relatives, and a number of people (myself included) have been reconstructing it with comparatively short legs for years before the Ibrahim paper was ever announced. So that's a really poor example for claiming phylogenetic bracketing doesn't work.

A better example might be bird species where the female is the more colourful partner and even does the displaying, or the few mammals with matriarchal societies. But these changes are far less deviating from the anatomical and behavioral norm than actually lacking the integument found throughout that entire group.

[Derek.McManus]

I'm fairly sure that some Dinosaurs developed feathers and that there is evidence for this and it may be much more widespread than previously acknowledged, it might not suit me as a 70's child who grew up with scaly swamp dwelling monsters but it hard to disregard the evidence! All the best Derek

[fason]

thank you for the replies    idont know why they have been deemed scaly but i guess its because they look relatively lizardlike without feathers 

[fason]

it seems i have a lot more reading to do x D

[Gwangi]

They're usually depicted with scales because yes, generally the public find reptiles more frightening than birds. That's why the animals in JP are considered monsters by some, because they are designed to look scary, not realistic.

[MLMjp]

I never liked using the term "monster" for JP dinos, the only creature that truly deserves that name IMO is the I.rex.

Becouse the JP dinos are still a real animal. A monster is a ficticious creature. While JP dinos are somewhat ficticious due to it's inaccurate look, which is a result of the incomplete genome of the animals in the movie universe. And in our universe due to the ideas that were considered accurate back then plus some artistic decisions they made. And of course because the producers wanted to capitalize on nostalgia in the most recent installment.

But still, despite being quite different from the real animal, they still have the name and genetic material of a real creature. That's why I do not like calling them monsters. Science fiction dinosaurs seems a more appropiate term for me.

However I have to admit that some JP carnivores may deserve to be called monsters, for example the Spinosaurus, not because of it's look, but because of his unstopping killing machine behaviour.

[stargatedalek]

One could also argue that Jaws, or even Godzilla shouldn't be called monsters either because in-universe they are made of natural DNA. SO I really don't think we can use that as a qualifier. Rather I'd say any animal appearing in a fictional work that does not resemble either in appearance or behavior its real life counterpart can accurately be called a monster.

[MLMjp]

One could also argue that Jaws, or even Godzilla shouldn't be called monsters either because in-universe they are made of natural DNA. SO I really don't think we can use that as a qualifier. Rather I'd say any animal appearing in a fictional work that does not resemble either in appearance or behavior its real life counterpart can accurately be called a monster.

But Godzilla is a fictional creature, unlike Jaws or JP dinos, Which are animals that REALLY exist/ have existed in OUR universe, although they look and act different in their movie universe.

[stargatedalek]

One could also argue that Jaws, or even Godzilla shouldn't be called monsters either because in-universe they are made of natural DNA. SO I really don't think we can use that as a qualifier. Rather I'd say any animal appearing in a fictional work that does not resemble either in appearance or behavior its real life counterpart can accurately be called a monster.

But Godzilla is a fictional creature, unlike Jaws or JP dinos, Which are animals that REALLY exist/ have existed in OUR universe, although they look and act different in their movie universe.

Godzilla is based on generic theropods, Jaws is based on a white shark, and the JP dinosaurs are based on specific dinosaurs (sans the raptors, which are something dreamed up for the movie and labelled Velociraptor because it sounded daunting). Anyone who knew about what each thing was based on wouldn't mistake the fictional version for the real one after that.